October 7, 2008

"This is not a man who sees America the way you and I see America," she told the Clearwater crowd. "I'm afraid this is someone who sees America as imperfect enough to work with a former domestic terrorist who had targeted his own country." The crowd replied with boos.

Milbank doesn't repeat the charge that it's somehow racist to talk about Obama's association with Bill Ayers, but he does immediately start talking about how it's racist to make anything out of Obama's association with Jeremiah Wright:

McCain had said that racially explosive attacks related to Obama's former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, are off limits. But Palin told New York Times columnist Bill Kristol in an interview published Monday: "I don't know why that association isn't discussed more."

Either Palin's political judgment is different from McCain's or her judgment is being exercised at a different point in time. Is it racist for her to want to use this material? But Milbank doesn't say it is, only that the material is "racially explosive." If Palin dares to talk about such things, what bad things people might think.

Worse, Palin's routine attacks on the media have begun to spill into ugliness. In Clearwater, arriving reporters were greeted with shouts and taunts by the crowd of about 3,000. Palin then went on to blame Katie Couric's questions for her "less-than-successful interview with kinda mainstream media." At that, Palin supporters turned on reporters in the press area, waving thunder sticks and shouting abuse. Others hurled obscenities at a camera crew. One Palin supporter shouted a racial epithet at an African American sound man for a network and told him, "Sit down, boy."

Hmm. I'd like to see the video of that. Now that the press has been attacked as biased, how will it defend itself? By connecting the candidate to the "ugliness" of the gathered throng, which it will describe: It shouts abuse, and some hurl obscenities. (Obscenities are always hurled, never merely thrown, tossed or lobbed.) The press will find that one guy who "shouted a racial epithet" and called a black man "boy." (Do we really know that guy is a Palin supporter and not a dirty trickster?) Look out, Sarah, if you inspire noise from the crowd, the press will choose which words to report. You might want to keep them soothed and calm.

McCain's swoon is largely out of his control...

Swoon... McCain's the girl around here. Palin's the real man. Is Milbank making a gender-tinged remark?

... the result of an economic collapse that ignited new fears Monday when the Dow Jones industrial average closed below 10,000 for the first time in four years....

But the campaign has reacted with recriminations (the St. Petersburg Times reported that the Florida Republican Party chairman, after questioning Palin's aptitude, was told that he couldn't fly on her plane) and now Palin's rage.

Yes, dammit, why can't Palin simply resign herself to the fate of the campaign? The stock market has crashed, therefore Obama's time has arrived. Yet Palin responds with "rage." Anger is stage 1. Get with it, lady. You belong at stage 5, resignation, where the nice, genteel Mr. McCain is.

"One of his earliest supporters is a man named Bill Ayers," she said. ("Boooo!" said the crowd.) "And, according to the New York Times, he was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that, quote, 'launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol,' " she continued. ("Boooo!" the crowd repeated.)

"Kill him!" proposed one man in the audience.

If Palin excites the crowd, the press will listen hard for the nastiest remark. She'd better rein it in then, Milbank hints, or the press will keep hearing these things and calling her ugly. She needs to be more like McCain and back out of the states that the polls show they are losing. Obama has won the election, and it's long past time for the little lady from Alaska to accept defeat gracefully.

***

By the way, should we assume that Palin didn't realize that McCain had declined to use Jeremiah Wright against Obama? Maybe she did know, and she intended to imply that McCain has not run a sufficiently vigorous campaign and to set herself apart as someone who could have fought to a victory but came in too late and weighed down by an inadequate running mate.

Her political interests are different from him, and I've been getting the impression that she is running with her eyes on 2012. (And with this post, I create the "2012 campaign" tag to go with the old "2004 campaign" and "2008 campaign" tag. The campaign blogging never stops.)

219 comments:

A lot of people seem to be assuming that the "kill him" remark was directed at Obama. In context, though, it sounds like it was directed at Ayers. That's much less alarming; in a just world, Ayers *would* have been executed.

You know, I read this stuff and I really want this country to have McCain/Palin at the helm. I love Obama, but I want revenge more. McCain/Palin are still the best revenge. I loathe the crowds that come to see her and am dying to see them get screwed. To say I look down on them is putting it mildly.

I'm very interested to see which McCain comes out at the debate tonight. Lately he has seemed very lackluster -- compared to his VP choice. I am uncomfortable voting for someone who is so easily overshadowed by his VP.

McCain may well have declined to use Wright against Ayers, I mean, Obama. (Sorry, it is confusing sometimes) But that does not mean that Palin isn't to use it.

I think that most people get the idea that Sara has been inside church a LOT in her life and is pretty qualified to call BS on shrill race baiters like the Most Rev. Wright. Plus that is the job for the VP candidate.

-XC

PS - I never thought about it before, but, "Dana," is that a girl or a boy name? Or is it a "Hi Pat" kind of thing?

In fact I think she had to bide time and so did the McCain campaign to re-habilatize her from the media attacks-not fair but there it is.

I think one of the most abysmal ads is where the McCain campaign took the wolves which had been a traditional symbol of terrorism or threats to national security--"sons of the Reagan Russian bear" and turned that symbolism into being all about Palin.

If you thought that McCain had tossed the National Security advantage overboard when he picked Sarah Palin THEY drove that message home with that very ad.

It was all about Palin and Palin-centric and it was no longer about the electorate's issues.

I don't see Palin in 2012. The storybook Hillary-Palin contest can't materialize unless McCain wins, then chooses not to run in 2012. Hillary is finished nationally with an Obama victory. My guess is that Palin goes on to VP or returns to Alaska to continue to serve the people there.

"You know, I read this stuff and I really want this country to have McCain/Palin at the helm. I love Obama, but I want revenge more. McCain/Palin are still the best revenge. I loathe the crowds that come to see her and am dying to see them get screwed. To say I look down on them is putting it mildly.

Revenge wins today. Screw a republican, vote McCain/Palin."

Bill Ayers couldn't have put it better. Contempt for the country and it's people..the hallmark of the left. McCain should grab your posts for commercials. "Exhibit A ,my friends, a typical Obama supporter...(insert Integrity post_

By connecting the candidate to the "ugliness" of the gathered throng, which it will describe: It shouts abuse, and some hurl obscenities. (Obscenities are always hurled, never merely thrown, tossed or lobbed.) The press will find that one guy who "shouted a racial epithet" and called a black man "boy." (Do we really know that guy is a Palin supporter and not a dirty trickster?)

You're right. The type of people who show up at these events to shout these things says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the candidate that they are there to see. It's merely coincidence that the Republican Party attracts racists and people who think that death threats are legitimate political discourse. How foolish of anyone to think otherwise.

It's an ugly article. It is paternalistic, and sneerful (am I making up a word here?) He constantly tries to play the race card. He no longer claims he heard someone say "Kill him!", he now heard someone call a member of the press a racial epithet. This is convenient since it cannot be easily refuted through video.

I won't go into further details. This, however caught my eye:

"Of course, Obama never promised to cut taxes for people at $10,000-a-plate lunches in air-conditioned tents on waterfront compounds."

Well, no, Dana. He promised it at $28,600 dinner at a Beverly Hills mansion. Or maybe he didn't promise it there at all because they didn't care, he didn't have to promise them anything other than "hope" and "change", they will follow him no matter what.

I don't see Palin in 2012. The storybook Hillary-Palin contest can't materialize unless McCain wins, then chooses not to run in 2012.

Or if Hillary successfully challenges Obama for the 2012 nomination. Kennedy almost managed to pull that off against Carter, and Hillary has the advantage of not having drunkenly killed any innocent women that we know of. :)

LarsPorsena said... "You know, I read this stuff and I really want this country to have McCain/Palin at the helm. I love Obama, but I want revenge more. McCain/Palin are still the best revenge. I loathe the crowds that come to see her and am dying to see them get screwed. To say I look down on them is putting it mildly.

Revenge wins today. Screw a republican, vote McCain/Palin."

Bill Ayers couldn't have put it better. Contempt for the country and it's people..the hallmark of the left. McCain should grab your posts for commercials. "Exhibit A ,my friends, a typical Obama supporter...(insert Integrity post_

Include in the ad that I am telling people to vote for McCain/Palin. Genius.

It's merely coincidence that the Republican Party attracts racists and people who think that death threats are legitimate political discourse.

What's amusing is that you think the Democratic Party *doesn't* attract racists and people who think that death threats are legitimate political discourse.

Heck, Obama's own circle of friends includes racists (e.g., Wright) and people who think *murder* is a legitimate part of political discourse (Ayers). And you want to whine about an anonymous (and possibly nonexistent) member of a crowd calling an anonymous black guy "boy"? Please. :)

Sarah Palin was once a member of the Alaska First party, one of its interests is secession.

Her husband is still a member.

What if Michelle Obama was a member of a Secessionist Party?

Think about that for a while.

Sarah Palin attacked Republicans in Alaska and she took them on in the primaries-and she did that by joining the more acceptable Republican party-but she essentially kept one foot in The Alaska First party when her husband remained a member....

Now one of her favorite issues is energy.

She likes to say how we need not be beholding or held hostage by oil rich nations YET she was a member of a party that wanted to do that very same thing-and her husband is still a member.

He and Palin haven't been forced to denounce that.

Alaska has benefited from the protection of the FEDS which she likes to deride, the oil is still there because of FED policy yet the Palins were members of a party that wants Alaska to take the oil profits and run from The Union.

The USA that is fighting two wars.

Those issues are a lot more current and on the public radar-and it's going to be hard to defend.

That is what she has opened herself up to.

You know following Canadian politics I don't cotton to Bloc Quebecois like tactics yet somehow Republicans think this Alaska First party agenda is "quaint".

Jerry Falwell (and Pat Robertson) made some disgusting remarks about God punishing the US with 9/11 because of the ACLU, gays, etc.... It was widely reported and condemned by everyone. Now, why is it any different to condemn the Rev. Wright and his pontificating that 9/11 was the "chickens coming home to roost"??? If McCain sat in Falwell's church for 20+ years, would that relationship be off-limits too?

Working on a college campus, I have to say death threats and cursing are small bananas compared to the average comments made by collegiate liberals. The women in my department feel that no "epithet" is inappropriate for Sarah Palin, up to an including one of our Deans referring to her as a "dumb b*****", and the head of my department responding to a Palin comment with "No one in this department would be dumb enough to support that woman". All of this in the midst of the news that our endowment has lost 10% since June. I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried...

The economy is in flames, and neither Obama's relationship with Ayers or McCain's equivalent relationship with Keating mean much.

Same/same.

Be sure to read the three articles about that great new TV show "Life on Mars." Meet the cast. Take the quiz. Oasis and Dylan have new stuff out. 'Dylan gives us 'Signs' of continued success.' "Natalie Portman is a force for change, empowering women. Ask Natalie Portman about her love life, and she'll shut you down. But mention microfinance, and she'll gab for hours." "Hotels' frequent-stay plans gain steam." "Look like Madonna."

Palin riles up a bunch Floridians, with terror talk and NY Times bashing...but then, the crowd terrorizes cameramen and stops booing the NY Times just long enough to cheer a story on Ayers and Obama. Hilarious.

These poor angry white voters, what with the media attacking them and all these terrorist politicians leading their country for so long...how ever have they survived being in the minority and out of power for so long?! Hilarious.

"Republicans-the Party of Lincoln-have nominated a Vice President that has toyed with secessionism."

I guess the radical abolitionists (ironically, probably the only politically active group of their time in the US that remotely considered blacks to be equals with whites) never suggested that possibility...

Interestingly, UCLA economists have agreed with Hayekian conclusions and calculated that FDR's policies actually prolonged the Depression by 7 years .(see Instapundit reference).

But President Obama and his band of merry leftists, many of them the same ones that sunk Fannie Fred (Dodd, Frank) and sunk Wachovia (lefty donors Herbert and Marion Sandler and George Soros), will benefit from the tax and spend that is about to be unleashed.

The rest of us will not do so well. Like in the depression, Obama's policies are certain to prolong the economic downturn, rather than improve it. But like FDR perhaps, it will take 70 years to have the news finally be acknowledged by many economists, long past time to do anything about it.

Yep, loathing of your fellow American who holds a different political viewpoint. How very tolerant of you.

A lesson we learned from right-wing nutjobs. Makes for a lovely country and intelligent discourse, doesn't it. As the right-wing trogs in Florida have demonstrated with yesterday's grotesque sounds and imagery. They make the eastern europeans of the 1940's look downright intelligent and positively classy. I wonder when the pogroms will begin.

Try again integrity. It isn't right wing nutjobs shouting down conservative speakers at universities or throwing pies at them.

As the right-wing trogs in Florida have demonstrated with yesterday's grotesque sounds and imagery.

Thanks but I've seen a few lefty protest marches and those trogs don't hold a candle to you guys. I welcome a spirited debate but I fear you've fallen too far down the rabbit hole to engage in any discussion that doesn't contain a Kos talking point. Your posts pretty much prove that.

But, there is no reason to doubt that the McCain team knows it's taking advantage of folks' unease with black folks. (E.g. BHO and Michelle would be feared by white folks if they had been tied (through membership and/or attendance) to separatists like the Palins have been.) Rather than getting past race based apprehension, the McCain campaign is feed it and appealing to it for votes.

So, in practice, being an excuse maker and collaborator is not be my cup of tea. But, I'm not carrying relevant and (seemingly) insurmountable self-associating baggage.

I have no doubt that Governor Palin has served Alaska well, and I can see how her style has energized the campaign. When Senator McCain wins the election, it will be fair to attribute some of the credit to Palin.

But...Are there actually Republicans here who look around at their party and seriously say, "I hope that, someday, she will be elected to the office of President of the United States."

In Clearwater, arriving reporters were greeted with shouts and taunts by the crowd of about 3,000..... At that, Palin supporters turned on reporters in the press area, waving thunder sticks and shouting abuse. Others hurled obscenities at a camera crew. One Palin supporter shouted a racial epithet at an African American sound man for a network and told him, "Sit down, boy."

This happened just to the left of me. Folks that had been hanging onto the railing for a front row position for three hours were ticked when the press, cameras and sound men trudged onto the platform and set up directly in front of them, blocking their view. Quite a few angry words were exchanged, but I sure did not hear obscenities or anyone hurl the "boy" insult.

Rev. Wright's liberation theology is warmed over communism, much as Ayers is a self-professed communist.

The Rosenbergs were executed for being communist spies, and it turns out they were in fact communist spies.

Alger Hiss was convicted yet lied about being a communist spy in the US government, but he was in fact a communist spy.

Now we have Obama, literally a fellow traveller of admitted and avowed communists, about to enter the highest office, and it bothers no one on the left and not enough independents or those on the right.

I guess that whole 50s thing was just bullshit, just like Woody Allen taught.

Re press bias: Last week's Newsweek ran an article that was ostensibly about the National Enquirer. The article featured a large picture of the current Enquirer edition. That edition had a large headline about Palin having had an extra-marital affair. Newsweek was thus able to be guttural in a high minded way....We like to flatter ourselves that we are smart enough to see thru the press bias, and sometimes we are. But for every overt slur we catch, I am sure that there are two or three that we don't. How else to explain the 37% disapproval rating of Palin. I think it is fair to question Palin's experience, grammar, and policies, but not in such a way that calls into question her basic decency. She is a competent woman who has led an admirable life. Those are just the objective facts of her life....I view cannibalism with horror; an Aztec high priest views it as a way of honoring his gods. We all have different values. The press has made a fine stew of Palin and expects us to applaud their culinary abilities.

I find the phrase "Palin's rage" mystifying. One of Palin's most obvious talents is the ability to respond to smears without getting angry. She smiles through every response and uses her most reasonable "I'm going to explain this to you in small words and quite slowly so you understand it, because it's obvious you just don't get it," voice. She's not nice when she's rebutting, but there isn't a hint of rage.

Why was this brief article buried in the NYT last week the only real discussion of Sarah Palin's record as governor? I am way more interested in learning about the candidate's actual record of accomplishments rather than the stupid blather about links to right wing or left wing churches. And which other candidates have been asked what newspapers they read? What a patronizing and offensive question.

According to the NYT, Palin has focused on obtaining funding for the oil/gas pipeline, which was one of her chief goals. She also increased funding for education, including for children with special needs. She declined to hold a special session on abortion, because she recognized the need to work across the aisle with her democratic colleagues. She also exercised remarkable fiscal discipline, recognizing that a budget surplus today should be saved for the years when things are tough.

So, despite the chain emails from *sources in the know* about her extreme right wing agenda, her actual accomplishments demonstrate a willingness to work in a nonpartisan way and a focus on issues of energy policy, education and budget restraint. Isn't that what we need?

Why isn't the coverage of the campaign more focused on what these folks have actually done?

I wouldn't be surprised if the guy shouting was a plant-- a moby in the flesh. It seems so unlikely a Republican, even an idiotic racist one, would be stupid enough to shout something like that in that setting (and so conveniently near reporters), given all the accusations of racism in the news-- anyone doing that must intend to hurt Palin. (We've seen faux "Republicans" at rallies etc. interviewed by journalists before, so it wouldn't be an unprecedented tactic. They would sink that low.) Besides, it reminds me of the kerfuffle raised over Hillary's remark about RFK-- taken (out of context) to raise the specter of assassination-- which was in the news, and hurt Hillary.

In retrospect, I really feel for Hillary's (and Bill's) frustration. They had to deal with charges of racism too-- but of course it's so much easier & acceptable to lob at Republicans. The script has been ready & handed out to reporters for weeks now (remember what's her name, the Dem pol, who made the speech about Republicans and "darkness" or whatever, this before the appearance of the first McCain ad accused of racism)-- now it's just a matter of fitting everything to that script. And the press is performing its role beautifully-- with feeling.

I wouldn't be suprised if Obama put out an ad about McCain's racism, like the one about McCain's lies-- just using the quotes from the MSM. It's a perfect loop: the Obama camp lets the press know its spin on McCain/Palin attacks; the MSM presents this as its own observation of the facts; the Obama campaign cites the MSM as evidence & corroboration for its spin. Like clockwork. It's so damn awesome to see Palin actually talking back to the press, holding her ground, not letting them reshape the narrative to suit Obama.

The Rosenbergs were executed for being communist spies, and it turns out they were in fact communist spies.

Alger Hiss was convicted yet lied about being a communist spy in the US government, but he was in fact a communist spy.

Actually, they were accused of spying for the Soviet Union--not for some nefarious "communist" organization in general. If you look at the current crop of people who are in jail for spying for the Soviet Union, they didn't do it for ideological reasons, and they are arguably quite conservative.

For all this talk about Ayers' terrorism, the Weathermen were a lot better at blowing themselves up than others. As for right wing terrorism, our president recently offered sanctuary to a known Cuban terrorist who blew up a passenger airplane. He is the toast of the Cuban exile community in Florida. I guess terrorism is okay as long as you are killing citizens of communist countries.

The entire strategy is to keep Republicans in a box. Have the media will do the dirty work for the Democrats. The Republicans will then forced to attack directly. Then the media defines the Republicans as "mean". It doesn't matter if the questions are valid. I've seen this same movie time and time again. The script has already been written. Time for everyone to play their part.

Ann is right. The month of October is all about positioning Sarah Palin for the future, if not 2012 than 2016.

The rank and file in the Republican Party love Palin. They respect McCain, but they have become attached to Palin in a way that no Republican has been able to match since Reagan left town. If McCain loses, Republicans and the rest of the country will have to endure Obama's Presidency. And heck, Obama could get reeelcted if there's an economic upturn in time for the 2012 election. However, alot could happen between now and then.

Palin, should McCain lose, will go home to Alaska, govern her state well, and become an instant star among Republican governors. She is smart enough to understand that performance in Alaska is key to her future national ambitions, so she will keep her nose to the grindstone and make it worth everyone's while to be in on her agenda.

Most of the Alaska Republican Party will want to help her out. If she becomes President, former legislative foes will instantly see Subcabinet Level Jobs in DC and K Street Consultancies dancing in their heads. She'll be nice enough to the Democrats in the legislature to keep them on boards with legislative pork, enough to ward off the various monkey wrenches that Obama's operatives from the National Democratic Party try to throw into Alaska politics to slow her down.

She'll undertake education reform and start making trips overseas (probably with someone like Condi Rice in tow) on trade missions. She'll become Big Pit Bull in the Interstate Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, because a lot of those Canadian provincial officials will think that they're sitting across from a future President.

What people don't realize is what a seasoned politico could have told you once the economy went south two weeks ago: Sarah Palin has only an academic interest in a McCain Presidency. Does anyone really believe that she would win an election in 2012 as Vice-President to Johnnie Mac? If McCain wins, the Democrats could run Himmler and Heydrich and beat a Republican in 2012.

Sarah Palin is about to become a huge cottage industry in the Republican Party. As I've written earlier, huge cohorts of the Party's intellectual hothouse base will decamp to Juneau and Anchorage, including the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and of course, anyone involved in Grover Norquist's Wednesday Group who meets at the headquarters of Americans for Tax Reform.

Ross Douthat has written that it's best for her to hold fire until 2016. He suspects that Obama may enjoy popularity in 2012, like Bush did in 2004. I suspect he may be right, and in that regard, Palin would be well advised to allow a store mannequin like Mitt Romney to get killed by Bambi.

Mitt Romney's people were covertly working to take her out, btw. The Hairdo understands just how much of a threat she is. The Bushies don't like her either, as they see her as a threat to Jeb's ambitions. She has f**ked up a lot of people's well laid plans. Of course, the Bush people couldn't win an election against Paul Tibbets for Mayor of Hiroshima right now, so in sum, a lot of Republicans are going to remember what the Bush and Romney people did to the Party.

In short, people like Andrew Sullivan look at her and scream "Christianist" or "Elmer Gantry" and remember the emotional breakdown of the William Jennings Bryan character from Inherit the Wind. That's how most of the intelligentsia and their outriders in the News Media look at someone like Palin. On the other hand, we Republicans look at Palin and see a return to Goldwater and the Reagan of 1976-1980, before the corruption of the Bush era and apologias of its Amen Corner: people like Gerson, David Brooks, and William Kristol. Liberals like Yglesias and Milbank don't get this about her and never will.They will be making these same, ignorant critiques of her long after she is President.

Now if Obama turns into Jimmy Carter and craters, which is just as likely given the built up pork demands of the Democratic Party and its innate pacifism, then she can run as the Avenging Angel and win in 2012. However, I expect her to run a 2016 campaign after she has built up enormous street cred, knowledge, political chits, and becomes the Young Reagan.

Right. Milbank and his ilk are claiming she had an affair, that she faked her baby's birth, and that if she really cared about her children, she wouldn't be running for office.....and then they whine about people booing them and telling them off.

Guess the libbies can dish, but they can't take -- especially when the take is telling the truth that their Obamamessiah thinks that education professors should be bomb-planting murderous anti-white racists.

Orlando Bosch is hardly "the toast" of the Cuban Exile community. He was hidden away in Miami for one reason: he was probably the cutout between a deeply incompetent CIA and its former JMWAVE personnel who decided to run their own terrorist operation.

JMWAVE, you'll recall, was the Miami Station assigned to overthrowing and murdering Fidel Castro Ruz, a head of state, on the direct orders of a U.S. President, John F. Kennedy and his brother Bobby. The Kennedy Brothers were a little more successful at the conspiracy hatched with the South Vietnamese generals to overthrow and assassinate Diem and Madame Nhu (with catastrophic consequences for all concerned) but had no luck with Fidel.

Bosch was given asylum for one reason: as a former exilio and Alpha 66 type, he probably knew lots more about JMWAVE that the Cuban Government would have liked to know in 1980. George Bush the Elder understood this, even if Jack was a Democrat. That's why Bosch was pardoned.

One of the lies peddled by the Church Committee in 1974 was that the CIA was a rogue outfit. It never was. It always acted at the behest of the President. The function of the Church Committee in 1974 was to whitewash the involvement of the Kennedy Brothers in the planning and execution of Operation MONGOOSE and the plots against Trujillo and Diem.

I suspect that if you want to understand why Bosch, a JMWAVE operative, was pardoned you need to understand that it was just G. H. W. Bush being his old bipartisan self.

Palin is jumping on Wright because she is an Evangelical Christian and he is an abomination who is using the cover of false Christianity to preach hate.

From our world view, he is dangerous and needs to be called out. This part of it has nothing to do with Obama. Jesus threatened the corrupt clergy of his day. Not just with his words, but with his actions! He chased them out of the temple with a whip!

Jesus forgave sinners like me and you. It is what he came to do. But Jesus condemned the corrupt clergy of his day, and so it is today. So Palin has her own position on Wright.

And tens of thousands support her for it. Part of who Palin is must be understood spiritually. She may be the person that folks like me rise up to follow. And we will be looking to change some things through the Democratic process, just like our counterparts on the left have been.

A new day may be coming, and I pray that we get things right this time.

Whatever Palin's accomplishments or aspirations, in a few short weeks, she has accomplished something tremendous: the issue of media bias and elitism is a front-and-center issue in a presidential race.

She's dishing it out, and she's proven she can take it, which is more than can be said for the media. They tried everything they could to kill her and failed. Now she's kicking their ass. It's glorious.

Or Jews in Israel as Arafat found out it gets you a lot of face time and sleepovers with the President.

Same goes for Begin. He was quite adept at blowing up Brits.

Freder's comments about Ayers and Wright are, like previous leftist retorts on the matter, evasive and nonresponsive, if not outright logical fallacies.

So, Obama knows some socialists in Hyde Park and actually worked with them! Palin went to a church that believes in witchcraft, driving out demons, apparently is a young earth creationist, and her husband belonged to a far right secessionist political party.

If you are going to play the guilt by association game, Palin has just as much to lose.

I don't hear shouts of "treason", "kill him" and anyone calling McCain or Palin a terrorist at Obama/Biden rallies.

She's dishing it out, and she's proven she can take it, which is more than can be said for the media.

Nothing new there. It wasn't all that long ago the MSM was pissing and moaning that the bloggers had the audcaity to call them out on factual errors. How dare some dude or dudette sitting home in their pajamas question the likes of CBS, Reuters or the NY Times.

Right. Milbank and his ilk are claiming she had an affair, that she faked her baby's birth, and that if she really cared about her children, she wouldn't be running for office.....and then they whine about people booing them and telling them off.

Excuse me, but unless you are equating Milbank with the National Enquirer (who the right suddenly found oh so credible when it uncovered Edwards' affair), a Kos diarist, or Dr. Laura Schlesinger, this statement is an outrageous lie.

So, Obama knows some socialists in Hyde Park and actually worked with them! Palin went to a church that believes in witchcraft, driving out demons, apparently is a young earth creationist, and her husband belonged to a far right secessionist political party.

If you are going to play the guilt by association game, Palin has just as much to lose.

So it's all the same.

Wait, when did members of Palin's church or Todd's political party bomb the Pentagon? "Some socialist" indeed. Obama is a socialist, Ayers is an incompetent attempted murderer.

Since it has thus been clearly demonstrated that they will not deal with her factally and honestly, she has absolutely nothing to lose by not playing The Game.

The best line the other day was when she said "The Associated Press is wrong." And then explained why in a couple short sentences.

It's always best to remember Occam's Razor in these affairs. Never credit a campaign with as much galactic incompetence as John McCain's with that kind of cleverness. The McCain people surrounded her with veteran's of the Bush Communication office from 2005 during her rollout. There's a reason she came off like a deer in the headlights.

Remember how well these clowns handled the Katrina disaster? They almost did the same to Palin. However, Palin has a survival sense, so she decided to go their own way.

You are either completely dishonest or don't have the slightest clue what the word "socialist" means. Name one industry that Obama wants to nationalize--and don't even start with "health care". Obama's health care plan doesn't even come close to being "socialist".

What are Obama's economic policies? He keeps talking about the economy and blaming the policies of W.

But does Obama have any economic proposals to address this mess other than to blame W.

Is blaming others his only economic policy?

Here in Illinois, the state pension fund has a $44 billion shortfall. Obama, as state senator, made no proposals and said nothing to address this, along with the huge deficits of Illinois government, which has been controlled by Democrats for the last 6 years.

Pehaps Dana Milbank or someone else can ask Obama because I've never heard an idea come out of his head on these issues. Does Obama have any ideas beyond Change and Hope?

Carriles? Bosch was the big wheel behind the attack on flight 455. That's why he was pardoned.

Jeb Bush was instrumental in that pardon, which is why the Old Man was so quick to let it happen (Jeb was pressured by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, whose husband, Dexter Lehtinen, was a certifiably insane State's Attorney at the time down here in Miami).

Pardoned Men Tell No Tales.

You don't skip Orlando Bosch out on a technicality from a Venezuelan Court so he can be handed over to the Cubans unless people in DC paid a lot of people in Caracas off.

By 1976, the Orlando Letelier affair had spooked a lot of Agency People from working with the Cubans, who were seen as a liability as early as the Mid-sixties, when one of the Cubans tried to make a rocket attack on a Cuban frieghter with a Panzerfaust.

Of course, Cuban looniness never bothered people like Donald Segretti and G. Gordon Liddy, so the Cubans had their uses. But Cuban exile politics is filled with high drama, grabastic acts of over-the-top anti-Castro faux martyrdom, and plain crimininality. The coffee is great, too.

Wait, when did members of Palin's church or Todd's political party bomb the Pentagon?

Radical anti-abortionists, of which you can find many in churches just like the one Palin attended, have killed many more people than the Weathermen ever did (which may be as high as four if you include the three members who blew themselves up).

You should encourage the Democratic Party to run with the "Begin was just as bad as Arafat" line. Really. It's a winner. :)

Although I would never suggest that the Democratic Party run with the line, it is pretty much a factual statement. Both were former terrorists who eventually turned away from terrorism in favor of diplomacy. Neither apologized for the excesses of their terrorist days. In that way, they were much like Ayers. Same with Gerry Adams or Michael Collins (since Hoosier mentioned Ireland) or Nelson Mandela, for that matter.

[Angy young black men], of which you can find many in churches just like the one [Obama] attended, have killed many more people than the Weathermen ever did (which may be as high as four if you include the three members who blew themselves up).

I have to admit...it is delicious to see Team Conservative fracture along the IQ-fault line.See --Noonan, Patterico, Allahpundit, Culture 11, etc., etc.

Palin could have a been a contender in 4 years...instead she is a textbook demagogue running on a platform of IQ-baiting and grievance identity politics....not to mention being indelibly branded as a moron and national punchline each week by SNL and Tina Fey.Coming soon to primetime on Thursday nights, doontcha know.;)

Freder again refuses to answer a direct question about Obama's ties to Ayers and Wright.

What exactly is the "direct question" I am not answering?

Was it wrong for Obama to attend a church where the senior pastor espoused Black Liberation Theology?

No. Most parishioners of most churches are less politically and socially radical (be it left or right) than the clergy. Even if Black Liberation Theology is a socialist philosophy (and while I know that Liberation Theology is a socialist philosophy, I don't know enough about Black Liberation Theology to know if it is truly socialist), it doesn't mean that the parishioners are socialist. If it did, then there are a whole bunch of Episcopalian, Presbyterian, and even Catholic socialists in this country who don't even realize they are socialist.

And Ayers?

Are you kidding me. Being on a board and accepting political help from Ayers makes Obama a socialist.

Radical anti-abortionists, of which you can find many in churches just like the one Palin attended, have killed many more people than the Weathermen ever did (which may be as high as four if you include the three members who blew themselves up).

So now we've moved from "Palin's association with a non-mainstream church and fringe political party is equivalent to Obama's association with a known urepentent terrorist"

To

"Palin's association with a non-mainstream church which is somewhat like some churches that had memebers that commited criminal acts is equivalent to Obama's personal association with a known urepentent terrorist"?

Yeah, that's a persuasive argument. If you're an idiot.

You are either completely dishonest or don't have the slightest clue what the word "socialist" means.

I do not think that word means what you think it means...

"Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth into a small section of society who control capital, and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.

Socialism is not a discrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other. Another dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split on how a socialist economy should be established between the reformists and the revolutionaries. Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; while others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy."

Considering Obama's main selling point is "taxes are patriotic" "soak the rich" and "what can government do for you", he might not be a socialist, but you wouldn't know it from listening to him.

Although I would never suggest that the Democratic Party run with the line, it is pretty much a factual statement.

Like I said, run with that line. You already have a candidate who is friendly with anti-Semites; equating a man who accidentally killed dozens of civilians with one who deliberately killed thousands of civilians is par for the course.Begin's organization set off a bomb that killed innocent civilians along with the British military personnel it targeted. Arafat's organization set off thousands of bombs specifically to kill innocent civilians in attacks with no military value. Only an idiot could think the two were equivalent -- so, naturally it comes as no surprise that you do.

Freder said:"Was it wrong for Obama to attend a church where the senior pastor espoused Black Liberation Theology?No."And Ayers?Are you kidding me. Being on a board and accepting political help from Ayers makes Obama a socialist?Yes, because the entwinement is far greater than you try to convey, yes it does.

So my question, which again you did not answer, is it wrong for the President to be a socialist?

If so, as you seem to imply that it is indeed wrong, why is it wrong?

"...then there are a whole bunch of Episcopalian, Presbyterian, and even Catholic socialists in this country who don't even realize they are socialist."

Why yes, Freder, there are lots of socialists who don't know they are in fact practicing that very faith unawares.

[Angy young black men], of which you can find many in churches just like the one [Obama] attended, have killed many more people than the Weathermen ever did (which may be as high as four if you include the three members who blew themselves up).

On what do you base this assertion, other than rank racism?

I can certainly back my assertion by pointing directly to those who both founded and encouraged the militant anti-abortion movement (especially Operation Rescue--offshoots of which believe in "justifiable homicide" of abortion providers) and led to clinic bombings and murders of abortion doctors.

What's amusing is that you think the Democratic Party *doesn't* attract racists and people who think that death threats are legitimate political discourse.

Exactly. I'll tell you that I certainly hear more unhinged stuff from the then the right, but they've both got them. There is something about bringing thousands of people together in a political environment that brings out the freaks.

However, I am very skeptical of these reports. As if the media has an ounce of credibility left after the stuff they pulled this year. Pshaw.

The "kill em" thing? My first thought would be that they were not talking about literal killing, that they were just happy for a fight. Take em down! Tear em to shreads! Blood in teh water! That sort of thing. I haven't seen a video, so I don't know.

Capitalism: Society ought to be built up on the basis of private ownership of the means of production

Socialism: society ought to be built up on the basis of public ownership of the means of production.

Mises: "It is the aim of Socialism to transfer the means of production from private ownership to the ownership of organized society, to the State.*20 The socialistic State owns all material factors of production and thus directs it. This transfer need not be carried out with due observance of the formalities elaborated for property transfers according to the law set up in the historical epoch which is based on private property in the means of production. Still less important in such a process of transfer is the traditional terminology of Law. Ownership is power of disposal, and when this power of disposal is divorced from its traditional name and handed over to a legal institution which bears a new name, the old terminology is essentially unimportant in the matter. Not the word but the thing must be considered. Limitation of the rights of owners as well as formal transference is a means of socialization. If the State takes the power of disposal from the owner piecemeal, by extending its influence over production; if its power to determine what direction production shall take and what kind of production there shall be, is increased, then the owner is left at last with nothing except the empty name of ownership, and property has passed into the hands of the State."

Socialism is direct government control of the economy. What Obama is advocating is more like fascism, where all industries are tightly supervised by the government and required to have the interests of the state as their primary goal, but are otherwise free to manage themselves within that framework.

So my question, which again you did not answer, is it wrong for the President to be a socialist?

Of course not. Are you claiming that a legitimately elected president of the United States could be illegitimate (which I assume is what you mean by "wrong") because his economic policies do not agree with yours.

I believe George Bush has committed impeachable offenses while in office but they have nothing to do with his economic policies. Just because I disagree with his economic policies doesn't mean that I don't think he should have been disqualified from being president.

And Freder, you do not understand the least bit about socialism if you claim it is limited to the nationalization of industries.

Of course I don't claim it is limited only to the nationalization of industries. But the claim that someone is a socialist sounds pretty ridiculous when you can't even point to one policy that even comes close to socialism (and the only claim that Obama is a socialist is that he knows some).

I've never seen a video of an anti-Semitic black witch doctor blessing Obama.

I'm sure there is footage of Jeremiah Wright blessing Obama out there somewhere -- although, to be fair, the man's an anti-Semitic black racist and socialist, not an anti-Semitic black witch-doctor. :)

Federson: In your 12:28P post you make the point that the MSM has not reported on Palin's affair. Please refer to my 10:58A post. In that post I make note of the fact that last week's issue of Newsweek in an ostensible report on the Enquirer showed a large picture of the Enquirer's headline. That headline reported the Palin affair. The MSM have a way of getting the trash out. I am reminded of the 88 campaign when Doonsebury featured a series of strips that told how the elder Bush had bailed out too early and let his fellow crew member die. In another context that would be called swift-boating.

What Obama is advocating is more like fascism, where all industries are tightly supervised by the government and required to have the interests of the state as their primary goal, but are otherwise free to manage themselves within that framework.

Where do you get this stuff? Do the monkeys flying out of your ass tell you this is what Obama is advocating, or do you just convince yourself of this because you are an idiot?

Worse, Palin's routine attacks on the media have begun to spill into ugliness. In Clearwater, arriving reporters were greeted with shouts and taunts by the crowd of about 3,000. Palin then went on to blame Katie Couric's questions for her "less-than-successful interview with kinda mainstream media."

In that post I make note of the fact that last week's issue of Newsweek in an ostensible report on the Enquirer showed a large picture of the Enquirer's headline.

OMG! Newsweek informed the 2% of the population that doesn't ever go to the grocery store that the National Enquirer was smearing Palin (personally, I am more interested in how Jennifer Love Hewitt lost all that weight).

Even if Black Liberation Theology is a socialist philosophy (and while I know that Liberation Theology is a socialist philosophy, I don't know enough about Black Liberation Theology to know if it is truly socialist), it doesn't mean that the parishioners are socialist.

Well you're probably right. I didn't see them as socialist either. I saw a congregation of racists who were jumping around in orgasmic fervor when Rev. Wright was goddmaning America and referring to the US of KKKA.

But the claim that someone is a socialist sounds pretty ridiculous when you can't even point to one policy that even comes close to socialism

Well I would think that increasing my tax rate in order to provide tax rebates to 95% of 'working families' sounds terribly like wealth re-distribution to me.

While I won't say he's a full fledged socialist on the European model, he certainly embraces more government intervention in day to day life. We've had eight years of 'conservative compassion' masquerading as more government intervention so forgive me if I don't think Obama's version will be an improvment on the budget deficit or my wallet.

He might, but so far none of you lefties has been able to find one as bad as Wright, let alone Ayers. Ayers tried to murder hundreds of American soldiers; good luck finding a McCain friend with that kind of dirt on him. Heck, you could find out he's been drinking buddies with David Duke for the last fifty years and that still wouldn't be as damning as Obama's friendship with Ayers.

I working for you garage. I know we can do it. You need to pick something that's not political that you know a lot about. Didn't you say you knew a lot about India? Drop in some stuff about elephants and curry. That will do it, you betcha.

But the claim that someone is a socialist sounds pretty ridiculous when you can't even point to one policy that even comes close to socialism (and the only claim that Obama is a socialist is that he knows some).

"I will tell ya that during this campaign, I’ve learned some things about him, about the kind of environment from which he came ideologically. And I wouldn’t…I’d hesitate to say he’s a Marxist, but he’s got some positions that are far to the left of me and I think mainstream America." - Joe Lieberman

There's the fact that Obama endorsed and campaigned for self described socialist senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

Like I said, dollars to donuts that guy is a moby. I mean, please-- racial epithets directed at the African American SOUND MAN FOR A NETWORK??? I'd missed that detail before-- god, it's beyond transparent, that this is a performance specifically for the MSM-- the ears, literally the microphones, of the MSM. Ugh ugh ugh... it's just contemptible.

Even the assumptions his experts make show that there will be a huge shortfall between increased revenues from his tax hikes on married couples making more than $250,000 (and singles making more than $200,000) and his healthcare spending.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will end some day (hopefully soon), but Obama's entitlement program will be with us forever, just as Social Security, Medicare (including prescription benefit) and Medicaid are.

We're can't even afford to pay for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and Obama wants to add more entitlement programs to the budget.

How is McCain going to pay for his tax cuts or extending the Bush tax cuts.

I will admit both candidates are being extremely dishonest about their ability to pay for their proposals. Although it turns out that McCain is more dishonest on this score than Obama as his proposals will lead to bigger deficits than Obama's.

I am sure that it will take just this one last post to convince Federson and others that there is a pronounced bias to the MSM. I remember seeing a female reporter asking McCain a question about viagra. The exact nature of the question didn't matter; the subtext was paramount. Here is the subtext: Old men need viagra. Old men are impotent. Every fertility legend has the crippled old King being replaced by the young Galahad. That was the message.....McCain saw what was going on and hesitated a moment before declining to answer. The press repeatedly played this exchange. They got a twofer: McCain was impotent and slow in his responses....The press plays these games and wonders why so many people despise them.

"So ...is it wrong for the President to be a socialist?Of course not.!!!

"Are you claiming that a legitimately elected president of the United States could be illegitimate ...because his economic policies do not agree with yours?"Yes; socialism is against the basic precepts of the US Constitution, and the worst and most destructive form of government that has ever existed. It has resulted in the deaths of 100 million people in the 20th century alone. It is based on an economic fallacy.

"But the claim that someone is a socialist sounds pretty ridiculous when you can't even point to one policy that even comes close to socialism".The entire DNC platform is socialist.Socialist: Promise neighborhoods.

Socialist:"When I'm President, I will raise the minimum wage and make it a living wage by making sure that it rises every time the cost of living does. I'll start letting our unions do what they do best again – organize our workers and lift up our middle-class. And I'll finally make sure every American has affordable health care that stays with you no matter what happens by passing my plan to provide universal coverage and cut the cost of health care by up to $2500 per family."

Socialist:"The philosophy behind the project is simple – if poverty is a disease that infects an entire community in the form of unemployment and violence; failing schools and broken homes, then we can't just treat those symptoms in isolation. We have to heal that entire community."

Socialist: Single payer health care.

Socialist:"Obama's socialist backing goes back at least to 1996, when he received the endorsement of the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) for an Illinois state senate seat. Later, the Chicago DSA newsletter reported that Obama, as a state senator, showed up to eulogize Saul Mendelson, one of the "champions" of "Chicago's democratic left" and a long-time socialist activist."

And what constitutional measures would you recommend for refusing to seat this hypothetical socialist president?

The only requirements in the constitution I see for president is that the candidate be a natural born citizen and older than thirty-five. Maybe you have a super secret super capitalist version of the constitution that I haven't read.

I remember seeing a female reporter asking McCain a question about viagra. The exact nature of the question didn't matter; the subtext was paramount.

Care to provide a link. Because contrary to what you claim, the exact nature of the question does matter, since the issue (what drugs--specifically birth control and ED--should be covered by insurance) was raised by Carly Fiorina, then an official representative of the McCain campaign, a couple days earlier.

The reporter was asking McCain to clarify a legitimate question about a policy position on prescription drugs that had been expressed by a leading campaign official.

And what constitutional measures would you recommend for refusing to seat this hypothetical socialist president?

Impeachment and removal from office would be the appropriate way to resolve the situation, although in practice a country willing to elect a socialist is unlikely to tolerate impeaching one.

The only requirements in the constitution I see for president is that the candidate be a natural born citizen and older than thirty-five.

It is the policies, not the person, which violate the Constitution. A socialist who didn't actually act like a socialist would be an acceptable President, just as it would be constitutionally acceptable for a President to support slavery so long as he didn't actually try to implement it here.

'And what constitutional measures would you recommend for refusing to seat this hypothetical socialist president?"

If he doesn't pull a JECarter and get bounced in 4 years, we could try some Thomas Jefferson:

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

And as I, and the article you link indicated, the issue was initially raised by Carly Fiorina just a couple days prior. So while the reporter may be accused of not doing her homework (because most health plans do cover both ED drugs and contraceptives, although it is not mandatory), the issue had been raised by his very own campaign.

Going back to the lead post: "stop fighting and accept defeat:' that was the same strategy that Team Obama tried with Ms. Clinton. To her credit she did not, and to her credit as well, Governor Palin will not. Apparently Dana Milbank, like the 60s radicals before him, liked their women prone (or supine--those idiots never understood the difference).

With tonight's debate in mind, here'sa rather bizarre twisting of logic from Fox News:

LA JEUNESSE: "Tonight as those candidates debate, an army of internet fact checkers will be trying to separate fact from fiction, acting as judge and jury as to which candidate is telling the truth or a tall tale.

While most of these sites are non-partisan, timely and useful, like Factcheck.org and Politifact, remember, they are uh...well, their facts are -- no one is checking the fact checkers. And their facts...unlike science...the facts are not irrefutable. And now to Washington."

Try to figure that one out...although I have to admit it was "fair and balanced" in the sense that it was fairly balanced between a malaprop, a double-negative and just plain gibberish.

Synova said..."I realize, Michael, that you can't be reasoned with but I'd just like to say that the VA and freaking VA home loan programs are not socialist programs they are PART OF MY PAY."

Sorry, Dude, but just because you pay into a fund or an organization of a program, the GOVERNMENT picks up some of the slack when it comes to providing the actual benefits, etc."

The Socialism of Social Securityby Jacob G. Hornberger, December 2003 [Posted June 11, 2004]

"The crown jewel of the socialist welfare state in America is Social Security. Rooted in the socialist predilections of Otto von Bismarck, the “iron chancellor” of Germany in the late 1800s..."

and...

According to the Future of Freedom Foundation, any government-owned, -funded, or -subsidized operation is considered to be a socialist program. For example, publicly owned airports, sports arenas or government-funded universities would be considered socialist operations by that definition.

And...

When the V.A. offers up mortgages that better rates than your regular financial institution...do you thin they do it because they just love people? And where does that money come from?

If Trooper York opined on journalists and lawyers, I'm agreeing with him, whatever his opinion.

If AA is out there, I wish her to know I consider blogging and writing as productive. I was listening to the ball game last night on the ride home and had to endure an advert from a law firm specializing in 'truck accident law'. It got me fired up. I despise parasitic professions. Most types of law and government work fit in here.

There's some definite amusement value in the notion that a candidate who bills himself as being a big change from the norm gets his panties in the bunch when people suggest there's something different about him.

As a member of the US military my ENTIRE PAYCHECK was provided by the government and tax money. So the fact that tax money is used for other benefits given to service members is irrelevant.

Those benefits are part of my pay, you twit. If they come in a direct deposit to my bank account when I was active duty or if they come in the form of various allowances and benefits, such as those provided by the Veteran's Administration or GI Bill or VA home loan programs.

As for the rest...

Since no one here is claiming to be a hard core Libertarian or Objectivist, your silly insistence that a person has to either not take advantage of any government program whatsoever *despite* the fact they've paid taxes to fund those programs... or they can't argue and work toward controlling and reducing those programs and the propensity to view social welfare programs as both a practical answer to real problems AND something other than damaging to the economy... it's just stupid.

Of course people can take advantage of public schools and other programs while they are available and oppose the creation of new programs and demand the responsible managing of existing ones. All at the same time.

I'd love it if Michael could give us a list of acceptable criticism of Obama, so that we lesser beings can avoid the racist stain.

(Which is why it's Palin that's managed to take on Obama... no doubt like many of the rest of us she knows that she can not avoid being called a racist no matter what she does. Unlike Bill and Hillary and Geraldine, who never saw it coming, she knows that the charge of racism is unavoidable.)

The appropriate term for a person who refuses to take advantage of government services he has already been forced to pay taxes for is "idiot", not "libertarian". All you're doing when you use government services is grabbing back some of the money the government extorted from you -- at least, if you're part of the minority of Americans who actually carry their fair share of the tax burden.

It is the patriotic duty of all conservatives and libertarians to overutilize all public systems in a socialist government, not only to regain that which has been unjustly confiscated, but precisely because it immanentizes its unavoidable eschaton.

The amount of money Obama will save in Iraq doesn't begin to cover his spending proposals. I'm all for saving $120 billion a year. (Let's close all our foreign bases).

But Obama's not proposing to save $120 billion. He's proposing to take and spend more. This is terrible fiscal policy. W.'s fiscal policy was horrible, too, but that doesn't mean we should make it worse by giving Obama the pen to issue for debt to pay for programs that, unlike the Iraq war, will never, ever go away.

It's frustrating in a way, yes. It's frustrating that no one cares and it's frustrating that someone like Ayers can find a place teaching in a University while other violent criminals have the worst time just getting a job as a grease-monkey.

And what else is frustrating is that Ayers can be main-stream academia and yet... suggest that Universities are overwhelmingly and often radically liberal and somehow that's not worth bringing up *either*. Or else it's actually denied. Silly conservatives and their fantasies, you know.

Ann Althouse.....aren't you the least bit bit perturbed about Palin being able to tap into tribal politics so efficiently?First IQ-baiting and the scam that she shouldn't talk to media...and now race baiting correlated with the Fear of the Other among her followers??She hasn't even had ONE SINGLE meet with her OWN press corps.Isn't that just a wee bit suspicious?

I'm afraid that is asking too much of the dour one (Michael that is). The reign of Obama will be a humourless period of atonement as all the remaining chickens come home to roost.

...so that we lesser beings can avoid the racist stain.

There's no avoiding that stain. Racism is the sine qua non of Obama's message. Without racism, there is no need of a healing Messiah. Recall that He said the stain of slavery was the nation's original sin. His message is that there has been no atonement, and only His election can promise this.

that is Ross Douthat, certified member of the conservative intelligentsia, such as it is.I doubt Palin would take his advice though, since he's one of those elitist intellectual snobs that actually don't know anything.lol

aren't you the least bit bit perturbed about Palin being able to tap into tribal politics so efficiently?

Are we supposed to insist that our politicians *not* be able to get their audiences excited? If this is a bad thing, how does it relate to Obama's fainting followers?

The only thing perturbing about Palin being good with a crowd is that it's not the proper crowd and the proper message.

First IQ-baiting and the scam that she shouldn't talk to media...

I never quite bought the idea that she was being kept from the media at all. It just seemed that way. I expect that she had a whole lot of things to do, in addition to public appearances, to transition from "not running" to "running full out", including the adjustments that needed to be made by her family.

The IQ baiting... is that something like calling the politics that appeal to the other side, "tribal?"

and now race baiting correlated with the Fear of the Other among her followers??

Bwa-ha-ha, oh, right... race baiting.

Is that something like calling the politics that appeal to the other side "tribal"?

She hasn't even had ONE SINGLE meet with her OWN press corps.Isn't that just a wee bit suspicious?

And now with that "suspicious" I've got the Church Lady in my head going on about the painted jezebel with the red shoes and we all know that red is the color of, don't we?

After two years of unrelenting MSM propagandas, those who trust the MSM are already voting for Obama. Those who believe any criticisms of Obama are racially tainted are already voting for Obama. Palin is appealing to those who know the MSM would cut and dice Palin's comments against her, to those who may stay home on Nov 4.

And when the libs threw oreo cookies at many Michael Steele campaign stops, the press reported those incidents? It was Mr. Steele's fault that his audience was whipped up to toss oreos at him?As the press excused Obama's 'killing civilians' slur, perhaps we should use post modern English deconstruction on the 'kill him' statement. Using my vast powers of liberal deconstruction, I found that this phrase actually means, 'give him tenure at the University of Chicago, Illinois". Glad to have cleared that up.

Tribal politics? Wasn't Obama the first to delve in that sort of thing, calling anyone who didn't vote for him "bitter people who cling to guns and religion"? Or his remarks at the end of the first debate, where he said the US wasn't a country to be admired anymore.